Standing Committee A

[Mr. Eric Forth in the Chair]

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

Clause 65 - Inland Waterways Advisory Council

Clause 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 66 - Constitution of Council

Roger Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 85, in clause 66, page 26, line 15, at end insert
'and the National Assembly for Wales'.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 86, in clause 66, page 26, line 20, at end insert— 
'(5A) One of the members is to be appointed by the National Assembly for Wales after consulting the Secretary of State. 
(5B) In making that appointment, the National Assembly for Wales must have regard to the desirability of appointing a person who appears to the National Assembly to have specialist knowledge of Wales.'. 
No. 131, in clause 67, page 26, line 37, after 'Ministers', insert 
'or the National Assembly for Wales'.

Roger Williams: Good morning, Mr. Forth. I am sure that the Committee is pleased to continue the scrutiny of this important legislation under your chairmanship.
The clause deals with the composition of the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council and touches on the nature of devolution in this country. Amendment No. 85 would make it a requirement that when appointing the chairman of the council the Secretary of State must take advice and consult the Welsh Assembly. 
When I moved an amendment to the schedule dealing with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, I said that the Secretary of State should consult with Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Assembly. When the Minister rejected that amendment—he has rejected amendments consistently during our consideration of the Bill—he said that it was unnecessary to mention Scottish Ministers because existing legislation covered that and that it was inappropriate to mention the Welsh Assembly in the Bill without mentioning Northern Ireland. I have made that mistake again in this amendment and I apologise to those who are considering the Bill from the point of view of Northern Ireland. 
It is interesting to note that the clause refers to Scottish Ministers in connection with the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council. If existing legislation refers to consultation with Scottish  Ministers, why does that requirement appear in the Bill in connection with the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council when it did not need to appear in connection with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee? If that body is to represent the interests of all UK devolved nations—the chairman will be an important figure on the council—the Minister should consult with those devolved Governments and Assemblies. 
I know that the Minister will tell me that he spends at least an hour on the telephone every morning with his colleagues in the Welsh Assembly and with Scottish Ministers, and I am sure that everyone here would agree that he has demonstrated in the Committee his commitment to devolution and involving everyone in these matters. However, Wales would take great comfort if that was in the Bill. We accept that the Minister is committed to these matters, but at another time after another election we might have Ministers who were not so committed to the limited devolution settlement that we enjoy at the moment. Will the Minister reflect on the fact that putting the requirement in the Bill would be an improvement for devolution in practice in this great nation of ours? 
Amendment No. 86 would require one council member to be appointed by the Welsh Assembly in consultation with the Secretary of State. Wales has a great interest in inland waterways, given the number of canals that serve the country. They are not only important for recreation; they are historic monuments, reflecting the great involvement in Victorian times of the private sector in the transformation from dram roads to canals to railways. A lot of the infrastructure that was put in place then has been lost, and nowadays we regret that, because we appreciate its value. 
From the perspective of both devolution and regionalisation, my party thinks that Wales should have a representative to look after the interests of its inland waterways—not just canals but rivers, and whether certain of them have navigable rights. I have been involved in the lower Wye valley, where there has been a lot of controversy as to whether that part of the river should be open to public navigation or whether access to it should be a right only of riparian owners. 
So I have tabled the amendments in the hope that the Minister will reflect on them and agree that they provide a way forward that will allow the Council to exercise not only its powers but its judgment, making it a force for improvement of the inland waterways—not just in England, in Scotland, in Wales and in Northern Ireland, but across the UK in an integrated and positive fashion.

James Paice: Mr. Forth, may I add my welcome to you on your final appearance in this Committee. I can say that because, whatever happens this afternoon, you will not be here.
I want to add a word of support for the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), and to refer to amendment No. 131, tabled in my name, which follows the sequence of points that he has raised, and also suggests that the consultation with the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers on terms  of office and procedures mentioned in clause 67 should also include the National Assembly for Wales. It seems a straightforward and logical thing to include, and I am not sure why it was omitted. If the body is to cover England and Wales, then, as the hon. Gentleman said, we should ensure that the Welsh Assembly is properly consulted by the council. For that reason, I support the amendments.

Jim Knight: Good morning, Mr. Forth. It is good to see you back in the Chair. It would be helpful if I were to clarify the purposes of clauses 66 and 67 in order to put the amendments into context.
Clause 66 sets out the constitution of the new Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council, and the arrangements for the appointment of its chair and members. Its key feature is to separate the council from British Waterways by removing the requirement for the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers to consult the chair of British Waterways about appointments to the council. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire asked about the requirement for consultation with Scotland. Scotland and Wales are treated differently in legislation with regard to waterways policy, because it is a devolved matter in respect of Scotland but not in respect of Wales. 
Clause 67 goes on to specify the terms under which the members of the new council will hold office, the procedure for the appointment of regional and other committees, and the arrangements under which the council will receive financial support. Again, the main effect of the clause is to remove British Waterways' direct involvement with the council by transferring responsibility. 
The important point to note is that clauses 66 and 67 preserve the arrangements under which the chair and members are appointed and the regional and other committees are set up, as they were designed with devolution in mind. That is particularly relevant to the amendments, as they all relate to the relationship between the council and the National Assembly for Wales. 
The amendments would place the National Assembly on more or less the same footing as the Scots in terms of appointments and consultation. The Secretary of State would need to consult the Assembly before appointing the chair and, after consulting the Secretary of State, the Assembly would be given the power to appoint a member with specialist knowledge of Wales. Furthermore, the council would need to consult the Assembly as well as Scottish Ministers before appointing any regional committee with the Secretary of State's approval. 
I recognise that there may, at face value, seem to be a case for giving the Assembly the same powers as Scottish Ministers, and I pay tribute to the assiduous way in which the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire scrutinises Welsh matters throughout the Committee's proceedings, but it would not be consistent with the devolution settlement if we were to agree to the amendments. As I said, unlike in Scotland, policy on inland waterways in Wales has not been  devolved to Wales, and as such it would not be appropriate for the Welsh Assembly to have a formal statutory role in the appointment of the chair and members of the council or of regional committees, but I do not want hon. Members to think that that means that we are not concerned about Wales. 
As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire has said, there is great interest in inland waterways in Wales, which I do not dispute. Although the Monmouthshire and Brecon canal is the only fully operational canal that is wholly in Wales—mostly in the hon. Gentleman's constituency—part of the Llangollen canal and the Montgomery canal are also in Wales, as are two or three rivers—the hon. Gentleman mentioned the Wye, the Dee and the Severn—which are navigable to a certain extent. 
We do not believe that it would be right to erode the devolution settlement, and believe that Welsh interests could be covered by less formal means. The existing council does have a member with specialist knowledge of Wales, and I understand that the arrangement has worked well. We will therefore ensure that Wales continues to be represented on the new council. 
I am happy to give the undertaking that DEFRA officials will consult their Welsh counterparts before the chair is appointed, and to confirm that they will consult them about the member to represent Welsh interests. I do not, however, want to play around with the devolution settlement off the cuff here and now in the Bill, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Eric Forth: Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, I should point out, for the sake of transparency and to avoid doubt and confusion, that clause 66 refers throughout to ''chairman'', just in case anyone was worried about the Minister's use of another term.

Roger Williams: I listened very carefully to the Minister's comments. No one doubts his commitment to the devolution settlement, and I am very pleased that he is positive about the way in which we have tried to scrutinise this important piece of legislation to ensure that Wales plays its full part in these matters. I understand his view that it might be contrary to the devolution settlement as it stands, but some of us want to take that settlement to the next stage, and some of the aspects of the Bill would not be consistent with an enhanced devolution settlement. The Minister and other hon. Members will understand that some of us want to proceed in that vein.
Given that the Minister has put on record his commitment to consultation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clauses 67 to 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 70 - Agreement between a Minister and designated body

James Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 132, in clause 70, page 28, line 18, leave out 'unconditionally or'.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 133, in clause 71, page 28, line 36, leave out 'unconditionally or'. 
No. 134, in clause 72, page 29, line 15, leave out 'unconditionally or'. 
No. 136, in clause 72, page 29, line 19, leave out 'unconditionally or'.

James Paice: The Government have referred to part 8 of the Bill as a tidying-up exercise following the creation of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and an opportunity to put into legislation the ability to make agreements with other bodies. Some of that is simply conducive to the pursuit of DEFRA's normal activities. The Opposition do not have a problem with the principle of what the Government are attempting. We do not believe in big government and therefore we are more than happy in principle for the Government to devolve some of their functions and activities to other bodies, as long as that takes things closer to the ground and the people who are affected by those decisions.
While I was studying the clauses, however, my eyes lit on the word ''unconditionally'', which causes me concern. The Government want, in clauses 70, 71 and 72, to allow an agreement to be made unconditionally with an outside body. Agreements under clause 70 would be with a ''designated body''; those under clause 71 would be with a ''non-designated body''; and those under clause 72—something of even more concern—would be between a ''designated body'' and a ''non-designated body''. 
The clauses thus cover a sort of subcontract arrangement; the Government would be subcontracting to one body, and, under clause 72, that body could subcontract further. I do not believe that such an arrangement should be unconditional. It is essential that there should be, as the phrase goes in the Bill, ''specified conditions''. Those might be fairly wide-ranging, but the idea that a Minister might, to take the provisions of clause 70(1) as an example, 
''enter into an agreement with a designated body authorising that body to perform an eligible function of the Minister . . . wholly . . . generally''
and ''unconditionally'' suggests a pretty wide-flung opportunity. It is too wide for the delegation of ministerial responsibilities. If the delegation is made ''wholly'', ''generally'' and ''unconditionally'', any strain of accountability has clearly been lost. 
Clause 71(1) uses the same phraseology, but about an agreement between the Secretary of State and a non-designated body—one that is one step removed from Government. However, clause 72, as I suggested, gives me the greatest concern. Under that clause, the  designated body A—perhaps half a step removed from Government, subcontracts with a non-designated body B, which could mean anyone 
''authorising B to perform an eligible function of A''
That would be a subcontracted subcontract. The same phraseology is present in the clause, with the words ''wholly'', ''generally'' and ''unconditionally''. That causes me great concern and we need at least to challenge the Government on the use of the word ''unconditionally''. Some conditions should be attached to the agreements. 
In a few moments, we shall consider another amendment relating to clause 72, hingeing on much the same points, but I shall not trespass on to that now. The point is clear: we support the principle of the Government devolving functions and agreeing their provision with other bodies, which is right and proper in a modern, democratic form of governance. Nevertheless, a theme of accountability to some elected body is necessary. As we are primarily dealing under the Bill with non-elected bodies, that must mean the Government. That is why the use of the word ''unconditionally'' causes me such concern. I hope that the Minister will allay my worries or at least understand my point, as we may wish to return to the matter at a later date.

Roger Williams: I, too, believe that the Minister needs to reflect on the word ''unconditionally'' as applied to a designated or non-designated body. I know that it has become more common for Government bodies and local authority bodies to pass across some of the functions that they have a duty to carry out or wish to carry out to other bodies, and I do not disagree with that process. However, it occasionally leads to difficulties whereby that other body finds itself in financial difficulties, perhaps having contracted with the private sector for the supply of goods and services. The question then comes of who is responsible to the private sector to make good the money owed by virtue of the provision of services and goods. Is it the designated body, the non-designated body or DEFRA? Perhaps the Minister will reflect on that when answering the points raised by the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice).

Jim Knight: The effect of this group of amendments, as we have heard, is to restrict Ministers' ability to delegate functions unconditionally. Hon. Members have expressed concern that that goes too far and have questioned the need for such delegation. It might be worth while first to say something about why the provisions are in the Bill.
We have deliberately created the powers in chapter 1 of part 8 on a broad and flexible basis in order to enable Ministers to respond more easily to the need for changes in delivery: to increase efficiency, to deregulate and to improve joined-up service to customers. For example, we have already touched on the ways in which those powers are likely to be of importance in helping to join up the working of the Forestry Commission and Natural England, to the benefit of customers. 
An agreement under clause 70 will also be the means by which functions currently performed by the Rural Development Service will be delegated to Natural England. The powers are therefore fundamental to what the Bill is seeking to achieve. They must be quite broad because we are trying to future-proof, if such a phrase exists, so that we do not have to delay sensible change. I apologise, Mr. Forth. I see you grimacing at the use of the phrase future-proof, and I have some sympathy with that. The powers must be quite broad because we are trying to ensure that they stand the test of time, so that we do not have to delay sensible change by possibly many years because of statutory constraints on moving functions around. 
Various sorts of delegations of functions are envisaged that will be potentially valuable as we seek to join up and improve rural delivery. To turn to the specific provisions in the amendments dealing with whether agreements may be unconditional, the Bill uses standard wording to explain how a Minister or a body may—and I stress the word ''may'', not ''must''—enter into agreements for the performing of eligible functions. In fact, the terms found in the clauses are virtually the same as those found in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. That includes the use of the phrase 
''unconditionally or subject to specified conditions''
when a Minister is contracting out a function. They seem to have stood the test of time—indeed, they have been future-proofed—and provide a useful precedent. The Minister would expect to be able to exercise judgment as to when to apply conditions to an agreement and when to make it unconditional, and would do so appropriately. The effect of the amendments would be to require the Minister always to make an agreement subject to specified conditions, irrespective of whether the Minister wished to impose any conditions. That seems to me to be particularly perverse. 
There are already sufficient safeguards incorporated into subsection (2) of both clauses 70 and 71, so that the agreement can be cancelled at any time or the Minister can still perform the function if necessary. The Minister remains fully accountable for the exercise of the functions; it is only the delivery that is contracted. Therefore, if the receiving body is not acting appropriately where an agreement has not been subject to conditions, safeguards are already in place. 
I suggest that the amendments, in themselves, are unnecessary. However, in looking carefully at the specific amendments—I am grateful to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire for the careful way in which he has approached things in this Committee—I have considered the clauses again. In many ways, the amendments do not go far enough. In the light of my reflection, I am minded to discuss further with colleagues whether we have the balance right in the provisions. It might be that the clauses would be better restricted to DEFRA-related functions only. Clause 71 is so restricted, and it is possible that we have left clause 70 too broad. I should like to consider what is required in order to achieve the core purposes of the Bill, and that might narrow the  application of the powers. I shall work closely with the key delivery bodies and other colleagues on the matter, and come back to the House with a clear line on it on Report. Then we can give due consideration to the issues raised by the debate. I hope that, on that basis, hon. Members will withdraw their amendments.

James Paice: Well, Mr. Forth, we are starting Tuesday in a good mode. It is not often that I am told that I am not going far enough, and I am grateful to the Minister for saying that. He is right that clause 71 is restrictive and clause 70 is not. Even more seriously, though, there is clause 72. That covers what I would call the second-tier agreement between a designated body and another body. Under clause 70, the Government could make an agreement with a designated body—one of the 19 listed in schedule 7, including the Wine Standards Board, the National Forest Company, a very small but worthwhile body, the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, which the Chancellor has announced that he is getting rid of, and many others. Then clause 72 allows one of those to contract with any non-designated body. Therefore, if it is not a DEFRA function in clause 70, it certainly is not in clause 72. I appreciate the point, and I am grateful to the Minister for having read all the clauses that are in front of him, and for having picked up the general purport of my amendments. I look forward to seeing what he comes back with on Report, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Chaytor: On clause 70(4), in respect of his power to add a body to the list in schedule 7, or to remove one from it, is my hon. Friend the Minister aware of any bodies that are in line to be added to the list, or that he would expect to remove from it?

Jim Knight: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, as I am to all hon. Friends for theirs. The short answer is no, but we set out the powers in order to allow ourselves to deliver a streamlined, more customer-focused service. While the answer now is no, we want to make sure that the legislation stands the test of time, and that is why we have set it up as we have done.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Schedule 7 agreed to. 
Clause 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 72 - Agreement between designated body

James Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 135, in clause 72, page 29, line 16, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.
In rejecting my desire in a previous amendment to remove the word ''unconditionally'', the Minister sought refuge, to a degree, in the fact that the Bill  provides that the Secretary of State ''may'' rather than ''must'' enter into an agreement. I now propose precisely the reverse. I am concerned that the Minister's approval ''may'' be given in relation to a particular agreement or in relation to a description of agreements—in other words, unconditionally or subject to specified conditions. 
One of the 17 designated bodies listed in schedule 7—as the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) pointed out, it could be a longer list—could make an agreement. It is right, given the channel of accountability, that the Minister should be required to give his approval. That is why I challenge the use of the word ''may'' in subsection (2). I suggest that the Minister ''must'' give approval for any such agreement because of the consequences for the Government. 
Although the Government could terminate an agreement under clauses 70 or 71, there does not seem to be an equivalent provision in clause 72 whereby a designated body could instantaneously sever an agreement with a non-designated body. In other words, if the Forestry Commission contracted out some sort of benchmarking scheme or forestry stewardship scheme, there would be no provision for the contract to be terminated; but the Government could terminate the agreement under clause 70. In that example, the Forestry Commission, a Government-owned body, would be stuck with an agreement even if the Government's agreement with it was terminated. That is why the Secretary of State's or Minister's approval should be given before such an agreement is made. 
I hope that I have made my case clearly. When considering second-tier agreements, I believe that ministerial approval should be given—and certainly so if it is to be unconditional. I accept that the Minister has to go away and consider DEFRA's functions, but in that context I hope that the Minister will at least agree to reconsider whether ministerial approval should be necessary in such second-tier agreements.

Jim Knight: The amendment would change clause 72 to require that the Minister's approval ''must'' be given in relation to a particular agreement or in relation to a description of agreements between a designated body and another body, and that that agreement must be subject to specified conditions.
The purpose of subsection (2) is to give further flexibility in order to allow the Minister to give approval for generic agency agreements. Subsection (1) states that a designated body 
''may, with the approval of the relevant Minister, enter into an agreement with a designated or non-designated body''.
The agreements themselves have to be approved by the Minister. Subsection (2) deals with generic agency agreements, so that it will not be necessary subsequently to seek approval for similar types of arrangement. In particular, it would avoid agencies having to ask the Minister to agree separately to almost identical, commonplace arrangements between various bodies. 
I hope that I have clarified the matter for the Committee, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

James Paice: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 74 - Maximum duration of agreement

James Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 74, in clause 74, page 30, line 28, leave out '20' and insert '10'.
I was concerned when I read the proposal for the maximum period—I readily accept that it is a maximum period—for which an agreement may authorise a body to perform a function is 20 years, which is a long time. Schedule 7, which we discussed a short while ago, contains a list of 19 bodies—I am sorry, I said earlier that it was 17. Their functions have changed over the past 20 years. Earlier this morning, we discussed devolution, which has affected a large number of those bodies. The Broads Authority has become more of a national park authority. The whole context of agriculture has moved from a bipartisan policy to encourage self-sufficiency towards decoupled arrangements and a wholly different system of agriculture. Forestry strategy has changed from timber production to amenity and landscape. Wine standards have changed and there has been a proposal to abolish the Wine Standards Board because English wine is now quite good, but 20 years ago it was not considered so. The milk industry has changed considerably. I could go through the list of bodies. The Gangmasters Licensing Authority did not even exist 20 years ago. 
I use those bodies as examples to demonstrate what a long period 20 years is. Although we may say today that it is fine to sign up to deliver something in 20 years, it is a very long period. The Minister will almost certainly say that the Secretary of State can terminate the agreements and that clause 72 requires an agreement to be reviewed every five years, so this does not matter. However, 20 years is an exceptionally long time and very few organisations, other than train operators and so on with which we are not concerned, will think about such a time scale. Conservation takes a long time, but delivery of functions, which is what this chapter of the Bill is about, operates on a shorter time scale. 
My amendment would reduce the period from 20 years to 10 years. In terms of our democracy, that is, as you know, Mr. Forth, two full Parliaments, which is a considerable period and allows for huge variation in government policy. Ten years is a reasonable period for which to expect any outside body to make a contract, to make a significant investment and to be able to write off that investment in staff, training, equipment, capital  assets and so on. Ten years is reasonable, but 20 years is far too long. 
Having said that, I confess that I have not waded through a vast amount of previous legislation and the Minister may tell me, as he did a short while ago, that the period in another Act is 20 years. That would not make it right in this context and that of the delivery of DEFRA's functions to the rest of the community. Ten years is reasonable.

Jim Knight: Mindful of the opening song at Saturday's concert, I will dub this the Sergeant Pepper amendment.
Clause 74 provides for a reasonably long maximum duration for an agreement of 20 years to allow for major delivery operations to be delegated to a suitable body. The clause provides a framework for long-term stability in service provision and confidence on the part of customers and the service provider. We must bear it in mind that much of the Bill refers to work on the environment and, to my mind, 20 years is not a long time in the life of an oak tree, for example, or much environmental management. 
The amendment could result in delivery bodies being reluctant to take on functions if the lifespan of the agreement seems not to justify the required investment. In turn, that could hinder the development of joined-up services by bodies such as Natural England. In practice, both parties would agree on an appropriate period for an agreement to suit the circumstances of the function. In many cases, it will be below the maximum period of 20 years. 
Agreements will in any event be reviewed by the Secretary of State in the normal course of business. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire predicts well my arguments. As he said, clause 72 already provides that agreements between designated bodies and other bodies must be reviewed by the Minister concerned at least every five years. That clause will ensure that the arrangements continue to be effective and appropriate regardless of the length of the agreement, and that they reflect the wishes of the Government of the day. As he pointed out, we must be mindful of that as well. 
The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to cancel an agreement should it be necessary in the light of such a review, although that remedy would be used only as a last resort.

James Paice: In the Minister's opening comments, he suggested that 10 years was not a long enough period, and that the investment might deter some organisations from taking on such an agreement. It is the same phrase that I used—the return of capital investment. Will he give us any examples of the sorts of agreements whereby capital investment would be expected in any reasonable business sense to run beyond 10 years? If it were and if a subsequent Secretary of State were to cancel the agreement, would that not render the Government liable for significant sums of compensation? Would it not be more appropriate, and would it not be easier to go along with the power to cancel, if the agreement were for a shorter period, and included a less open-ended commitment to compensate?

Jim Knight: To some extent, the hon. Gentleman's argument is logical. I am particularly thinking about habitat restoration projects, in which a function may be delegated to carry out such work. There is such a project of heathland restoration ongoing in my constituency. It is a long-term project to restore the historical heathland to the Purbeck area of Dorset. Cancellation decisions would have to be made as a last resort, because if agreements had been made on the basis of the long-term investment required for such a project, one would have to take seriously the losses that might be incurred and, one would assume, any compensation that might be required.

Robert Goodwill: Surely in those circumstances, if a local wildlife trust, for example, were to enter into an agreement, the fact that the agreement would be renewed regularly would give the trust an added incentive to deliver on it. I suggest to the Minister that a long agreement is less likely to provide that incentive. It is interesting that in his remarks on previous clauses, he talked about the legislation having to stand the test of time. The inflexibility of a 20-year period in the agreements means that it is less future-proof than it would otherwise be.

Jim Knight: In some ways, one could cut the legislation both ways to achieve the same result. We could have either short agreements, producing the friction that requires improved performance, or long agreements, but with the requirement that at least every five years the Minister review the agreement with the power to cancel it. That would provide the same sort of friction to ensure that performance was delivered. One would expect the Minister when reviewing the operation of an agreement to ensure that the agencies concerned were delivering. It is worth making it clear, particularly in respect of clause 72, that the Minister is still accountable. Delivery is being delegated, but accountability is not being delegated at all, and that is why we are keeping the requirement for the review.

James Paice: I hope that the Minister will agree that there is a slight distinction. He referred to an agreement involving the restoration of natural habitat on heathland or wherever. The investment that I am talking about is not investment in heathland or the oak tree, or whatever it was that he referred to. No one is suggesting that that is a short-term agreement, and we do not want to bring that back just for 10 years. The agreement to which I refer is with a contractor who will deliver. My earlier challenge to him about the investment period was about the investment in men and machines, not the public investment in the countryside for what we hope will be a permanent change to create the countryside of the future. Except in extreme cases such as the railways, most businesses, whether the Wildlife Trust or a private sector organisation, would not expect a contract to run for more than 10 years. I am drawing a distinction between that sort of investment and public investment in the environment. That is the fundamental objective.

Eric Forth: Order. The Committee is being run in a fairly relaxed mode, and there is nothing wrong  with that, but interventions are starting to get somewhat lengthy. I remind the Committee that they should be brief.

Jim Knight: We are trying to create a framework in statute that is flexible enough to cope with all sorts of agreements. The clause contains the word ''maximum''. When an agreement is approved, I would hope that the relevant Minister would consider carefully its term to ensure that it is appropriate and that we are not contracting for too long a time in the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman describes. However, a maximum of 20 years may be appropriate for the examples that I gave. I hope that, on that basis, he will withdraw the amendment.

James Paice: I am grateful to the Minister, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clauses 75 to 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 78 - Power to establish boards

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Paddy Tipping: This is an important part of the Bill, and it would be appropriate for the Minister to make some remarks and answer some questions on it. It is clear that the powers to reform agricultural and horticultural bodies and perhaps create new ones are wide ranging. They have the potential greatly to change the structure of the levy boards.
The idea is not new. It was telegraphed in the Haskins report and the Government announced their decision in March. I know some of the bodies involved. As the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said, many of them have been around for a long time. I simply say to the Minister that a change of this kind will not necessarily be easy. I have no objections to changes. Clause 78 and the following clauses set out the process, but it will be important to have a long period of consultation and work on it. Other clauses give powers to dispose and reallocate property, which will not be easy. 
I ask the Minister to sketch out for the Committee and those who watch our proceedings the timetable that he has in mind. Later parts of the Bill—I hope that you will allow me to make these remarks now, Mr. Forth—spell out how the changes will be dealt with by way of secondary legislation through statutory instruments. I understand that the negative procedure will be used. Again, it is important that there is a long period of consultation so that Members of Parliament can have an opportunity to comment. 
I do not underestimate the need to change, but neither do I underestimate the contentious nature of some of the issues. I would just like the Minister to  outline his thinking about the timetable, consultation and parliamentary procedures involved.

James Paice: I agree with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping). He has taken the opportunity to raise the issue under the first clause in this chapter of the Bill. A couple of amendments that I have tabled will be discussed in relation to clause 88, although they touch on the point that he has raised. Perhaps now is the right opportunity to discuss the general point, and I agree with him. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to discuss it.
What we have here, understandably, is the Government's desire to take the one legislative opportunity that they have in this parliamentary Session—and, being realistic, that they are likely to have for two or three years—to create the powers to deal with whatever comes out of the Radcliffe review of the existing levy boards. None of us knows what those conclusions will be. In the agricultural industry, there are a multitude of different views about the value of the British Potato Council, the Home-Grown Cereals Authority, the Horticultural Development Council, the Meat and Livestock Commission and the Milk Development Council. Given the MDC's report last September into supermarket margins, I suspect that some organisations would be quite happy to see the back of it. It was quite a major report to which—without wishing to digress—the Government perhaps have not made as strong a response as I would wish. 
Those bodies exist. If people go out, as I do, and discuss the matter with farmers and farmers' organisations, they will realise that there are a multitude of views. We do not yet know what conclusions will come out of the inquiry. It may be proposed that some of the bodies remain in their current state, some may be merged and some may be abolished. There are many permutations. We do know that there will be a report. As an aside, I hope that that report to the Government will be published as a precursor to what follows. That is not the same as the Government's publishing their own proposals that they will make as a result of the report—the proposals to which the hon. Gentleman referred. 
Clearly, there is the potential for a significant impact on the agricultural industry for the next—dare I say it, in light of the earlier discussion—20 years or perhaps more. I do not think that there is anybody who does not appreciate that, given the changes that farming faces—the advent of the single-farm payment, stewardship schemes and so on—farming itself must change. Through some form of statutory levy, these bodies are engaged in promoting their particular sectors of the industry, helping to market their products and improving standards. In principle, everybody understands those objectives. Farmers need to grasp that more clearly than perhaps many have in the past and they need to understand that, if they are to compete in a more globalised agricultural economy, the role of such bodies is important. 
Whether the bodies should remain as statutory bodies or become voluntary, and whether they should remain levy-funded or should be funded by  subscription are issues that will be part of the current review. As I have said, I know that there are many different views. It would be helpful if the Government gave us an update on their plans in relation to the principle of dealing with these bodies and if they addressed how they see the sequence of events unfolding. I will not trespass on your indulgence by talking about my amendments, which I will deal with later, Mr. Forth, but it would be useful if the Government were to lay out how they see things happening, when they expect the report to arrive, when they expect to produce their proposals, and how long they expect to spend consulting the industry and everybody involved in the food sector. 
There is also the vexed question of devolution. Some of the bodies have a cross-border role or there is an element of devolution within them. The Meat and Livestock Commission is an example of a body in which is an element of devolution. It would be useful if the Minister could explain how that devolved aspect relates to the inquiry and whether the agreement of the Welsh Assembly or, I think in one case, the Scottish Parliament would be necessary to any change, and how that will work. These bodies are constantly evolving. They need certainty. I hope, therefore, that the review will not take too long because people on these bodies—the chief executive of one of them is a constituent of mine—are anxious to move on and to know where the organisation is going. While there is uncertainty, those organisations cannot do that. As the hon. Member for Sherwood has rightly said, this would be a useful opportunity for the Minister to explain the Government's thinking on the powers that they are seeking to take in the chapter.

Roger Williams: I, too, would like to join the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire in paying tribute to the members and the staff of those organisations who have played such an important, positive part in promoting British agriculture and food production.
Without straying too far from the clause, there will be huge changes in British agriculture in the next 10 years resulting from the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy. Some of the recent discussions about further reform of the CAP do not take into account the radical reform that has taken place in the past two years, where no money will be provided for farmers to promote production in the future. The support of agriculture will be entirely decoupled from commodity support. 
A huge number of issues have been raised in relation to the review that is taking place and the report that will be made on future developments. I support a reform of the bodies in question, probably to bring them into a single body that will be given the duty of considering the whole of British agriculture and commodity support and production in this country. In coming to a decision on whether to have a body that is supported by the Government or industry—or both—either through a levy system or subscription system, account should be taken of the fact that there may be a huge reduction in agricultural production in this country. Farmers may consider the systems and ask themselves whether it is worth their  while being involved in food production, or whether they should use the land for some other purpose. This body, in looking for its financial base, should take that into consideration, and I wonder whether the Minister has considered that. 
Under the system until now, bodies have been almost assured of a supply of money because agriculture has been regulated by quotas or by a subsidy system that encouraged production and investment in that production. That may no longer be the case in future. I am worried about food security as well, because this country has been awash with food from production here and supply from the world market. Reform of the CAP could lead to a huge reduction in food production in this country, and this body, or bodies that are set up in the future, will have to take account of that and come to some conclusions about it. I would be grateful if the Minister, among the other reflections he has committed himself to make, would reflect on those issues.

Jim Knight: I will start by explaining what the chapter does, then move on to the detail of the clause. The chapter gives the Secretary of State powers to establish new bodies for agriculture-related industries and to dissolve existing levy bodies, which are, as we have heard, the British Potato Council, the Home-Grown Cereals Authority, the Horticultural Development Council, the Meat and Livestock Commission and the Milk Development Council, and any new bodies created by the provisions. Those powers will provide the means for implementing the recommendations of the current review. The review is now under way and we believe that it will lead to significant benefits for all stakeholders. Indeed, the stakeholders have been positive about our carrying out of the review and the taking of powers to implement it here.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood raised important questions about the timetable and consultation. On the timetable, we expect the report to be published by the end of the year. Indeed, there is a scenario whereby publication of the report may coincide with the Bill going through the Lords. That would give their lordships an opportunity to examine the section in that context, but I cannot guarantee that. 
We are certainly committed to publishing the report. I give my hon. Friend that reassurance as well. We will publish our response as soon as possible thereafter. The time that it takes us to publish our response depends to some extent on what the proposals are and the complexity of whatever the review says. We will then consult. 
The Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which my hon. Friend ably chaired, raised some of those questions. I remind the Committee that the Sub-Committee was, in principle, content with the proposal that 
''Ministers be given power to amend primary legislation relating to the levy bodies by way of secondary legislation.''
It noted that 
''It is not unprecedented for Ministers to take powers to create new public bodies by secondary legislation.''
It was rightly concerned that an additional degree of parliamentary scrutiny of orders should be made under this chapter. It is normal practice to include a draft order when consulting on affirmative statutory instruments. That would be done by the affirmative procedure. The Government are content to publish orders for scrutiny by the Committee and others as part of the normal 12-week consultation period when implementing any findings of the levy board's review. That is what we said in our response to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. 
The Bill represents an important and timely opportunity to put in place a general provision that will enable Ministers to implement the findings of the review. In referring to Ministers, I am talking about the appropriate authority to make an order. That is what is said in clause 78. 
In that regard, I want to address the devolution point made by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. Clause 87 defines the appropriate authority. In England, it is the Secretary of State, and in Wales, it is the National Assembly for Wales, and so on. We are trying to account for the devolution settlement by using the term ''appropriate authority'' and defining it later in the Bill. There will be a specific obligation in the terms of reference to take account of the priorities of Ministers in the different parts of the United Kingdom. We fully recognise the devolutionary imperatives. Clause 97, on commencement, reflects the need for flexibility in how and when the powers are used in practice. 
As I said, the review will not report until the autumn. A more specific legislative proposal would inevitably pre-empt the review's findings, but not to make a proposal now risks the Government having no legal means of implementing the recommendations of the review once concluded. We are keen that the benefits should be realised as soon as possible. 
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire made a good point about the way in which farming is changing and about levies in particular. In time, there may be a need for a levy body for non-food crops. That is certainly within the scope of the flexibility that we are giving in the powers, and it may be something that will emerge in future. 
So clause 78 is the key clause in chapter 2. It enables the Secretary of State to establish a levy board for a defined purpose, but is limited by clause 79 to an affirmative resolution order. The clause allows functions set out by clause 80 to be assigned to a new body and provides for its constitution as set out in schedule 8.

James Paice: I want to pick the Minister up on his point about non-food crops. His last reference was to clause 80, which defines the permissible functions of the boards. I seek clarification as to whether setting up something for a completely new type of non-food crop is in the embrace of those provisions or whether they are concerned purely with setting up new bodies to  carry out the functions of existing bodies, although perhaps under a new structure.

Jim Knight: That is an interesting point. My instinctive understanding is that the powers are wide enough and that the answer will probably depend on how we define agriculture. Yes; it appears that my instincts might be correct and that the definition of agriculture would allow for the establishment of a levy board in respect of non-food crops.

Roger Williams: I made some comments previously that might be construed as affecting my entry in the register, Mr. Forth. I should like to restate those interests.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 78 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Schedule 8 agreed to. 
Clauses 79 and 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Schedule 9 agreed to. 
Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Schedule 10 agreed to. 
Clauses 82 to 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 86 - Directions

Jim Knight: I beg to move amendment No. 146, in clause 86, page 35, line 1, leave out 'The appropriate authority' and insert 'A board'.
I apologise for interrupting your flow, Mr. Forth, which was carried out with such expertise that I wonder whether your next career, should you choose one, could be spent reading out the football scores. However, James Alexander Gordon does a fine job, so perhaps not. 
The clause confers powers on the appropriate authority to give directions to a board as to the exercise of its functions and provides for any such directions to be published. The powers also give the appropriate authority the power to vary those directions. It therefore follows that there should be a requirement for a body to comply with any direction given under the provisions. As drafted, subsection (4) requires the ''appropriate authority'' to comply with any such direction, but that reference should of course be to the board to which a direction is given. It is essential for Ministers to be able to give such directions, to ensure that boards contribute to our strategic objectives for the sector concerned. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Clause 86, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clauses 87 to 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 90 - Byelaws relating to land drainage

Jim Knight: I beg to move amendment No. 152, in clause 90, page 37, line 8, leave out from 'system' to ', or' in line 10.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 153 and 154.

Jim Knight: As the amendments make minor technical revisions to the clause, it might be helpful to set out briefly what the clause is designed to do. The clause allows for the Environment Agency, local authorities and internal drainage boards to take account of the environmental effect of land drainage works when making byelaws or taking a decision under those byelaws. The effect of the existing words in the byelaw-making power has been to prevent drainage bodies from taking account of the environment—in many cases obliging them to take decisions that might adversely affect environmental objectives.
A number of byelaws require those wanting to carry out various types of work, such as dredging or work on banks, to obtain the approval of the drainage body first. The drainage body may add conditions to that consent. However, the phrase 
''necessary for securing the efficient working of the drainage system''
is considered to mean that an operating authority cannot refuse consent under the byelaws solely on conservation grounds, or add conditions with the aim of minimising environmental impact. 
One key example cited by the Environment Agency is the extraction of gravel. In the majority of cases, the extraction of gravel has no effect on flood defence interests, so the agency cannot refuse consent; neither can it take enforcement action against those who extract without consent, because drainage is generally improved. However, the extraction of gravel has been cited as damaging to bird species and aquatic life, and detrimentally damaging to river ecology and geomorphology. A change in the byelaw provision will allow operating authorities to place conditions on such work, thereby reducing the damaging effects. 
These three minor amendments to clause 90 are technical amendments to deal with what appears to be an oversight in the Water Resources Act 1991, in that the definition of drainage in section 113 of that Act does not apply to schedule 25, which is amended by clause 90. The amendments therefore apply the definition of drainage in the Act to the byelaws provisions in paragraph 5(5) of schedule 25. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Amendments made: No. 153, in clause 90, page 37, line 11, leave out from 'system' to 'on' in line 12. 
No. 154, in clause 90, page 37, line 12, at end insert— 
'( ) In paragraph 5(5) of that Schedule, after ''banks'', insert '', drainage''.'.—[Mr. Knight.] 
Clause 90, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 91 - Abolition of certain agricultural etc. committees

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Eric Forth: With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 160 to 164.

Jim Knight: If I may, I shall speak to the Government amendments at the end of my remarks.
The clause dissolves defunct DEFRA-sponsored committees—the Hill Farming Advisory Committees for England, Scotland and Wales and the statutory Consumer Committee of Great Britain and the Committee of Investigation, both of which operate on a UK basis. The Hill Farming Advisory Committees were established to advise Ministers on the exercise of their powers under the Hill Farming Act 1946. However, few of those powers are still relevant today. The main provisions relate to post-war land improvement grants or hill livestock subsidy schemes prior to the common agricultural policy. Times have changed. Those committees have not stood the test of time and it is appropriate that they should be abolished. 
The amendments collectively ensure that further redundant articles from two relevant Northern Ireland orders are removed, because they would no longer be relevant once the committees in question were abolished. It is always good practice to remove such redundant legislation once it becomes clear that it will never be required again for other similar committees. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clauses 92 to 95 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 11 - Minor and consequential amendments

Jim Knight: I beg to move amendment No. 158, in schedule 11, page 69, line 41, leave out sub-paragraph (h).

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 150, 159 and 162.

Jim Knight: Amendments Nos. 158, 159 and 162 have the collective effect of removing the current duty on the planning authority under the National Parks and Access to Countryside Act 1949 to consult the Countryside Agency, which, subject to the passage of the Bill, will be Natural England, before making access agreements. That cuts out the bureaucracy and inevitable delay of consultation, as the authorities already have the necessary expertise. These are, of course, agreements, and there will be consultation in the natural course of making them. It seems sensible to take such decisions without needing to consult Natural England, so I urge hon. Members to accept the amendments.
On amendment No. 150, Great Britain has a wealth of nature reserves, which are declared in the National Parks and Access to Countryside Act 1949. In England alone, there are 217 national nature reserves, which cover more than 87,000 hectares, and more than 1,000 local nature reserves, which cover almost 40,000 hectares. Times have changed since the original purpose of nature reserves was set out as the  preservation of their special interest features and the provision of special opportunities for study or research. They are some of the most beautiful nature conservation areas, and by far the most common reasons for visiting them are to enjoy their special qualities and for open-air recreation. 
Amendment No. 150 maintains the intention behind paragraph 12 of the schedule, which is to enhance the current purpose of England's national nature reserves to more explicitly accommodate management for the general enjoyment of nature and open-air recreation. However, following consultation with the devolved Administrations and key stakeholder bodies in England, Scotland and Wales, the amendment extends that beneficial enhancement to all nature reserves, both national and local, and to such reserves in Scotland and Wales. 
Finally, the amendment also sets out more clearly than the current paragraph 12 that management for that general purpose should not be at the expense of conserving the special interest features of the reserves.

James Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for introducing amendment No. 150, on which my own eye had alighted. I want to ask him several questions about it, because of the choice of phraseology, although I am in no way against the principle of what it seeks to do.
First, I am concerned about the use of the word ''solely'' in proposed subsection 15(1)(a) to the National Parks and Access to Countryside Act 1949, which states: 
''land managed solely for a conservation purpose'',
although proposed subsection (1)(b) refers to 
''land managed not only for a conservation purpose but also for a recreational purpose''.
My concern is that if a nature reserve is not classified as having a recreational purpose—a point to which I shall return—no other use of the land is consistent with being part of a nature reserve. What about agriculture? Grazing cattle or certain primitive breeds of sheep is often part of managing nature reserves. The chalklands alongside the Devil's dyke, the old Anglo-Saxon earthwork that runs from north to south through my constituency, are all grazed by primitive breeds of sheep in order to keep the flora and the banks in the condition that we want.

Madeleine Moon: Would it be helpful to consider the word ''managed'' rather than the word ''solely''? Management plans for nature reserves may include selective grazing and draining to conserve their biodiversity. It is simplistic to think that conservation means simply leaving the land to grow wild. In fact, the management of land is critical to the conservation of biodiversity.

James Paice: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. I wholly reject the argument from some quarters that neglect equals conservation. It does not. The countryside needs to be managed, and the flora and fauna within it need to be managed. 
My example was of livestock being used to manage land for nature reserves. Nevertheless, grazing livestock is an agricultural activity, and I am concerned at the phraseology. The hon. Lady is right that the phrase that is used includes ''managed''; but it says ''managed solely''. I would have preferred to see ''managed primarily'', as it would have clarified the provision. However, these are not my amendments. I challenge the Government on their choice of words, with a view to discussing them later in our proceedings, and particularly on their use of the word ''solely'' rather than ''primarily'' or something similar to ensure that other activities can take place in a nature reserve. 
My second question is about proposed subsection (2)(a), which defines land managed for a conservation purpose as land 
''managed for the purpose of . . . providing, under suitable conditions and control, special opportunities for the study of, and research into''—
and so on. That is a narrow definition of conservation. I do not equate conservation with protection—there is a subtle difference—but most people would define conservation more widely than 
''the study of, and research into, matters relating to the flora and fauna of Great Britain and the physical conditions in which they live, and the study of geological and physiographical features of special interest in the area''.
In layman's language, most people would say that conservation is about protection—managing rather than neglecting—but it is about more than study and research. For most people, it is about maintaining or enhancing populations and the wider good of the community and the world in which we live, as well as about study and research. 
My third question relates to the phrase ''recreational purpose'' in proposed subsection (3). Exactly what does that mean? I shall not rehearse the arguments about recreation being contradictory to conservation needs, because they are covered in other legislation. The Minister will not be surprised to hear this, as we referred to the same subject earlier in our proceedings, but I am more concerned about the implications for traditional activities, and particularly game shooting and grouse shooting. Many would argue that such activities are recreation. If he is going to say that it is the Government's intention that such things should be considered recreational, that is fine; but I would like it to be on the record. 
At the outset of the Committee's proceedings, I declared my role as a trustee of the Game Conservancy Trust. Work yet to be published provides even more proof of the interrelationship between higher populations of many bird species on managed grouse moors and managed shoots than those in areas that are completely unmanaged—areas that have been allowed to become derelict, where nature is allowed to take its course. 
There is a clear correlation between the objectives of conservation and the role of shooting. I am anxious to ensure that we will not exclude that interrelationship by using the recreational definition, because shooting interests involve conservation as well as pest and predator control. I would not want to see  that definition work against those interests. My concerns are not about the objective of the amendment, but about the Government's choice of phraseology. I would be glad to hear the Minister's comments.

Robert Goodwill: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, but I would not restrict recreational activity to shooting. We have activities such as coarse and game fishing, ferreting, hunting using birds of prey and—this is dear to my heart—motor cycle trials.
It could be argued that any ingress on to a nature reserve compromises that nature reserve. If I were a member of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, I would have the right to enter a nature reserve, and the fact that I had entered it might compromise the way in which the birds there behaved. The absence of my subscription to finance the work of the RSPB would still further compromise such a reserve, however. The same argument applies to shooting. The facts that gamekeepers operate on a moor and that people go and shoot on that moor could in some way compromise the other wild life on that moor. Many people might say that that is a cost too far. However, if the income was not being received from those activities, the moor really would be compromised. 
Which recreational activities would the Minister wish to list as permitted recreational activities on nature reserves or land managed for conservation purposes, and to what extent is there compromise between allowing the ingress of people engaging in activities and accepting the income without which many of the nature reserves would not exist?

Jim Knight: Hon. Members have raised some interesting and useful points. I shall try to deal with them one by one.
The word ''solely'' was mentioned. Does it preclude other activity within the nature reserve? Not at all. It draws a distinction between proposed subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b), in order to preserve the original purpose of nature reserves. It is important when we think about nature reserves to remember that their primary and ultimate purpose is to preserve that precious natural environment. The use of the word ''or'' in the amendment adds the recreational purpose to the conservation purpose; thus, management for enjoyment or recreation does not become a necessary requirement before land can become a nature reserve. There is nothing to prevent other legitimate uses of the land from continuing as at present, provided that they do not prevent its management for the purposes of a nature reserve. The good management of the land through farming or the creation of habitats for shooting would be appropriate as part of the management of the reserve, to protect its special conservation status. 
The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire suggested that proposed subsection (2) might be too narrow. I point him towards the word ''or'' at the end of subsection (2)(a). It is clearly not just about providing suitable conditions for study and research. The ''or'' is about 
''preserving flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features of special interest in the area.''
Ultimately, that is what we need to safeguard in our nature reserves. 
Finally, on the questions in respect of recreational purposes and shooting, we envisage such forms of enjoyment as walking, cycling, educational workshops, art and woodcraft activities and poetry events. Some reserves have audio, tactile and visual interpretation experiences to enhance the public's enjoyment of them, and in some places people enjoy the areas by carrying out sports such as angling and shooting. So long as the activities are in sympathy with the conservation and good management of the reserve, they certainly count as recreational. I hope that, on that basis, hon. Members will be happy to support the amendment. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Amendments made: No. 150, in schedule 11, page 70, line 12, leave out paragraph 12 and insert— 
'12 For section 15 (meaning of ''nature reserve'') substitute— 
''15 
Meaning of ''nature reserve'' 
(1) In this Part, ''nature reserve'' means— 
(a) land managed solely for a conservation purpose, or 
(b) land managed not only for a conservation purpose but also for a recreational purpose, if the management of the land for the recreational purpose does not compromise its management for the conservation purpose. 
(2) Land is managed for a conservation purpose if it is managed for the purpose of— 
(a) providing, under suitable conditions and control, special opportunities for the study of, and research into, matters relating to the fauna and flora of Great Britain and the physical conditions in which they live, and for the study of geological and physiographical features of special interest in the area, or 
(b) preserving flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features of special interest in the area, 
or for both those purposes. 
(3) Land is managed for a recreational purpose if it is managed for the purpose of providing opportunities for the enjoyment of nature or for open-air recreation.''.'. 
No. 159, in schedule 11, page 71, line 42, at end insert— 
'In section 64 (access agreements), omit subsection (5).'. 
No. 149, in schedule 11, page 80, line 32, at end insert— 
'( ) In that subsection, after the definition of ''poultry'', insert— 
'' ''premises'' includes land (including buildings), movable structures, vehicles, vessels, aircraft and other means of transport;''.'. 
No. 160, in schedule 11, page 84, line 21, leave out from 'Omit' to end of line 23 and insert '— 
(a) Article 21 (committee of investigation), and 
(b) Article 22 (action following report by committee of investigation).'. 
No. 161, in schedule 11, page 90, line 9, at end insert— 
'Agriculture (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 (S.I.1993/2665 (N.I10)) 
Omit Article 22 (functions of certain bodies in relation to agricultural marketing schemes).'.—[Jim Knight.] 
Question proposed, That this schedule, as amended, be the Eleventh schedule to the Bill.

Roger Williams: I wish to make just a small point about schedule 11, about which the Minister will perhaps be able to help us. Paragraph 41 of schedule 11, on page 74, contains the title
''General functions of the Countryside Council for Wales''.
Further on in the paragraph, the schedule gives the power that the Countryside Council of Wales may 
''make such charges for any of their services as they think fit''.
That probably gives too great a power for even a Welsh body to carry out. I seek assurance from the Minister that such a power would be subject to secondary legislation by the Welsh Assembly and would require consultation.

Jim Knight: I am just reflecting on that, but it gives me a good opportunity to say some things about schedule 11 that I think would be helpful and important, and with your permission, Mr. Forth, about schedule 12. Both schedules are introduced by clause 95. I am not entirely clear whether we have covered clause 95 yet.

Eric Forth: Yes, we dealt with that.

Jim Knight: Very good.
Schedule 11 contains minor and consequential amendments, the vast majority of which simply reflect the creation of new organisations—Natural England, the Commission for Rural Communities and others—and the abolition of existing organisations, such as English Nature and the Countryside Agency. Some new provisions can be found among the remaining paragraphs in schedule 11, and it is important that I highlight them. 
Paragraph 4 ensures that it is no longer an offence for levy boards to disclose information to others. That will promote the sharing of data between levy bodies and with other organisations to aid streamlining and modernisation in line with freedom of information principles. 
Paragraph 11 removes duties on the countryside agencies to advise on the administration of national parks and the development of visitor facilities. That is a deregulatory measure that reflects the fact that national park authorities have been independent bodies since 1995 and would not expect that degree of involvement from Natural England. 
Paragraph 12 enhances the purpose of national nature reserves in England to accommodate more explicitly enjoyment of nature and open air recreation, as we have been discussing. Paragraph 96 declares for the avoidance of doubt that, within England and Wales, the definition of plants in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 includes algae and fungae. The schedule also contains a number of tidying-up and consequential amendments. 
As regards the specific and interesting point raised by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, I need to think a little longer about a sensible answer. I will therefore respond to him by letter and copy the Committee into that correspondence. 
Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 12 - Repeals and revocations

Amendments made: No. 162, in schedule 12, page 94, line 34, at end insert— 
'Section 64(5).'. 
No. 163, in schedule 12, page 98, line 12, leave out '22(1) and (2)'' and insert '22' 
No. 164, in schedule 12, page 98, line 17, at end insert— 
'Agriculture (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 (S.I.1993/2665 (N.I10)) 
Article 22.'. 
—[Jim Knight.] 
Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to. 
Clause 96 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 97 - Commencement

Jim Knight: I beg to move amendment No. 155, in clause 97, page 39, line 18, leave out 'the Environment' and insert 'Agriculture and Rural Development'.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 156 and 157.

Jim Knight: The amendments make two small adjustments to relevant Department names and add one new important subsection to the commencement clause. Amendment No. 155 was tabled at the request of the Northern Ireland Administration, and simply changes the Department in Northern Ireland to be consulted by the Secretary of State when commencing the measures in part 2 reconstituting the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
Similarly, amendment No. 156 requires the Secretary of State to consult the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Department of the Environment before commencing provisions in schedules 11 and 12 that affect Northern Ireland only. 
I mentioned amendment No. 157 when we discussed the rights-of-way provisions. This additional measure covers regional commencement, allowing the Secretary of State to commence the rights-of-way provisions earlier in some areas. That approach follows a precedent in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. On that basis, I urge hon. Members to accept the amendments. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Amendments made: No. 156, in clause 97, page 40, line 10, after 'Development', insert 
'and the Department of the Environment'. 
No. 157, in clause 97, page 40, line 13, at end insert— 
'( ) An order under this section may make different provision for different purposes or different areas.'.—[Jim Knight.] 
Clause 97, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clauses 98 and 99 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Jim Knight: I take this opportunity to say a few words as the Committee concludes. I must admit that when I walked into our first sitting a few weeks ago, I was rather nervous about tackling for the first time the task of being the Minister on a Standing Committee. I believe that this was also Mrs. Anderson's first experience of chairing a Committee, and I congratulate her on the excellent job that she did. I trust that you will pass that on, Mr. Forth.
I thank you too, Mr. Forth, for the expert way in which you have overseen our proceedings. Earlier, you used the phrase ''a fairly relaxed fashion''; you have steered an able course between relaxation and sticking to order, for which I thank you on behalf of the Committee. 
I thank all members of the Committee. I have been impressed by their expertise and their passion for the important subject of protecting our environment and rural communities. I am grateful for the constructive approach that they all took, as a result of which the Bill has been thoroughly scrutinised. We have got to the end of the programme, which does not always happen. We have disagreed on some points, and our discussions on others have led me genuinely to reconsider; I hope that the Committee appreciates that. I shall write to Members today on a small number of issues, and shall continue to reflect on others, on which I shall come back to all Committee members either during the Bill's proceedings or in writing. 
We had some interesting discussions about the rural idyll that is Sheffield. I do not think that a sitting has gone by without some discussion of Sheffield. Aside from the fact that Natural England's headquarters will be there, Sheffield is a good example of an area in which the Bill's provisions will have a significant effect. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) pointed out that it is only a 15-minute journey from central Sheffield to what we would call the countryside. Natural England will be a major player in the countryside, but its role in city fringes, urban green spaces and, indeed, protecting biodiversity in people's gardens through advice and education will be equally important. Sheffield is on the edge of the Peak District national park, and some say that it is the greenest city in the country. We have had fun with it, and it has been an enjoyable feature of our proceedings that will remain with me. 
We had a long and detailed debate about Natural England, and I am immensely grateful for the detailed attention that Committee members have given to its provisions. That was perhaps best exemplified by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who is sadly not in his place at the moment. I will remember for some time his insightful but disarmingly simple questioning about the terms ''methods'', ''concepts'' and ''techniques''. I wrote to him this morning to clarify what those terms meant and why it was useful to retain them in the Bill. 
As the Committee has gone about its work, it has used a rigorous method and applied some interesting  debating techniques. The concepts that have informed the debate have generally been sound. At one point, my hon. Friend rose to make what he called a ''pedantic point''. I can assure the Committee that the careful scrutiny that he has given the Bill has been gratefully received and was extremely useful. It has given me much to mull over during the recess. 
We unanimously agreed on the importance of getting Natural England's purpose right to reflect its challenging remit, meet the aspiration that it will be more than the sum of its parts and ensure that, through its environmental work, it can maximise its contribution to sustainable development. We have heard impassioned arguments about making the body more explicitly environmental. We have heard thoughts about how Natural England's progress might refer to the relationships that it will have with rural communities, business and farming, and about how its contribution to sustainable development could best be expressed. We also considered in depth the important issue of the body's future independence. 
All those discussions were carried out constructively, and I want personally to thank the hon. Members for South-East Cambridgeshire and for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), who have led for their respective parties. They have done an excellent job in scrutinising the Bill's detail, and I thank them for that. 
The Bill is important to the Government. I have been encouraged by the broad welcome that it has been given in Committee and in the many parliamentary briefings provided by non-governmental organisations, which I am sure all Committee members have appreciated. I thank those organisations for their involvement in the process and for ensuring that the Committee has been well informed by stakeholders. I am excited that my first Bill as a Minister will leave a lasting legacy for present and future generations: a conserved and enhanced natural environment for all; a strong advocate for rural communities, in particular the most disadvantaged; and a vision that has the pursuit of sustainable development as its heart. 
I look forward to my next Bill, which I think will be the Commons Bill, and I look forward to Committee members leaping forward with enthusiasm to take part in its scrutiny. Perhaps we may even be blessed with your good chairmanship, Mr. Forth.

James Paice: Mr. Forth, may I add my thanks to those of the Minister to you and Mrs. Anderson? I am conscious that you believe strongly in proper Committee scrutiny of legislation, and I hope that you feel that we have made a reasonable fist of it from this side of the Committee. I am conscious that it is only thirteen minutes past 12 o'clock, and I am not sure that I can continue this scrutiny through until 1 o'clock, much as I am sure that you would like us to. I will sit down shortly and let the Liberals try, as they will probably be more successful.
This has been a constructive Committee, and I congratulate the Minister on his first Bill and on the fact that he has handled it extremely competently—I do not mean to sound patronising—and without any  aggression or confrontation. He has clearly been in charge of his brief, and I am sure that it will be the first Bill in a successful ministerial career. 
That brings me to thanking the outside bodies, as the Minister did. He has not yet found—although he will do so in due course—that, in opposition, one is reliant on outside bodies for help and advice in dealing with legislation and suggesting amendments. I express my thanks to all the organisations that have supported the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats in challenging the Government, as is our job. 
When I first joined the House, it was conventional to thank also the Doorkeepers and, particularly, the police for keeping the peace in Committee. I repeat those thanks, although the world seems to have changed a bit. There is slightly less aggression now than there was in my early days, when the role of the police was perhaps far more significant, and the former Opposition were dividing Committees far more regularly. 
I thank also the hon. Member for Sherwood not just for his role as Chairman of the Sub-Committee that undertook the valuable scrutiny that I have mentioned, but for his constructive approach to the Bill in Committee. This Committee would have been the poorer without his membership, and I am grateful to him. 
The Minister has listened, and I am grateful to him. He has not accepted any of our amendments per se, but that is standard practice, and he has accepted some of the points that we have put forward. He referred to Natural England and to the issues that were raised in that debate. I do not renege on the Opposition's position in principle, nevertheless Natural England will come into being, and we want it to be successful, and we shall do everything in our power to achieve that. I hope that the Minister will reflect further on the issues in clause 2 about its responsibilities. They are the subject of widespread debate, and, as he has said, it has not all been consensual debate. There is disagreement about the environment, sustainable development and other matters. 
I hope also that the Minister will reflect on the appointments to Natural England that he will need to make. It will be terribly important to ensure that whomever he appoints to the chairmanship and to the post of chief executive carry with them the credibility that is necessary throughout the panoply. I do not mean to denigrate, but it would be a mistake to appoint anybody who has the baggage associated with one or other of the countryside special interest groups. Someone with broad acceptability is necessary to get the organisation off the ground and, in many ways, the same comments apply to the Commission for Rural Communities. 
In the debate on pesticides poisoning birds, the Minister agreed to return with thoughts about preventing fishing trips by inspectors, and I am grateful to him for that. There are also concerns about the part of the Bill that deals with the year- round protection of birds nests. I am grateful that he put some points on the record. 
By far the most controversial aspect of the Bill between the Minister and the rest of the Committee was the issue about motorised vehicles on rights of way, and about when the order would commence to prevent the addition to the definitive map of the applications that, as the Minister now agrees, have been sent in since the issue was flagged up. Having reflected on the matter since last week, he has to accept the clear view of the Committee and of the House on Second Reading that the year he proposed was far too long away. He must find a way to stop the surge of applications from changing the definitive map. 
I am quite certain that as the Bill returns to the Floor of the House and progresses to the other place, there will be other changes. I have flagged up in Committee a number of areas in which I suspect that they will occur. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues in another place will remain sympathetic to the general approach that he has kindly reflected on, and that we have taken in Committee, trying genuinely to improve the Bill and to make it more appropriate to our shared purposes. I am happy to wish the Bill well and to support its conclusion at this stage.

Colin Breed: May I briefly echo the words of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, and say how much I enjoyed this Committee? I do not think that it is often said that one enjoys such an experience, but it has been enjoyable and the pace was right. This important Bill benefited considerably from pre-legislative scrutiny and I am sure that such scrutiny will become more of a feature because it helps the whole process and helps us to concentrate on areas where there is a difference of opinion. The Bill is largely uncontentious and, in many areas, there is broad agreement in the House, except perhaps in some details.
We had one major objection: to the creation of the Commission for Rural Communities. We still believe that some local authority powers should be restored and that local authorities should be given new powers and the opportunities and resources to administer them. I like to believe that we won the argument but lost the vote. Time will tell whether the CRC works. It is important that, when new bodies are set up, they are evaluated, and I assure the Committee that the CRC will be evaluated to ensure that it lives up to the Minister's hopes and expectations. 
I add my formal thanks to our Chairpersons, Mr. Forth and Mrs. Anderson, whose knowledge and experience assisted us. I also thank the Minister who performed very well and assisted our consideration. I wish him well with the Bill and in his future career. No doubt he will have a period of reflection, although he does not have much to reflect on, and I hope that some of the issues that we have discussed will be finely tuned on Report so that they are more in line with the broad thrust of what we all want to happen. 
I hope that the Bill passes through all its stages because not only our generation, but generations to come will be affected in the way in which we manage our countryside and land use on our small island,  which is becoming more crowded than some of us would like. It is important that land, and the birds and animals with which we share it, as well as biodiversity are properly considered when dealing with land use, land planning and the way in which we look after the environment generally. I wish the Bill well.

Eric Forth: Before I put the final question to the Committee, I thank all members of the Committee for conducting our proceedings so pleasantly and knowledgeably. That has added greatly to our deliberations. I add my appreciation to the Minister for the assured way in which he guided us through the  Bill—his first Bill but not, I am sure, his last. We are all grateful for that.
I thank Hansard for keeping up with us and, most of all, I thank the Committee Clerks. All Chairmen rely on them heavily and I probably more than most. They keep us on the straight and narrow and keep me relatively honest. For that I am very grateful. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
Committee rose at twenty-three minutes past Twelve o'clock.